Bulletin 30 | Oct 2025
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
EBC, publisher of the “Coat Pocket Edition of the Constitution of India,” filed a suit against Rupa Publications alleging passing off and unfair competition. EBC contended that its edition— featuring a distinctive black-and-red cover, gold leaf embossing, and compact format—had acquired substantial goodwill and recognition. Rupa Publications released a similar coat-pocket edition that closely replicated EBC’s trade dress and layout, misleading consumers and diluting its identity.
The Court, while granting an ex parte ad interim injunction, held that the get-up, layout, and presentation of Rupa’s edition were deceptively similar, establishing a prima facie case of passing off.
Relying on Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2023), it reaffirmed that unregistered trade dress merits protection once distinctive.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition seeking quashing of her summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, terming it frivolous and imposing costs of `10,000.
The Court reaffirmed that the pendency of a civil recovery suit does not preclude simultaneous criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour, as the two remedies address distinct liabilities, civil recovery of money and penal punishment for dishonour.
Rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that complaint under Section 138 was filed prematurely, the Court clarified that Section 138 contemplates 15 days after notice for payment and one month thereafter to file the complaint; hence, filing on 29.10.2022 was within limitation.
Lastly, the Court held that the question of genuineness of cheque signatures is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated in quashing proceedings, as the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial under Section 528 BNSS.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining rogue websites from unlawfully hosting or streaming the film “Jolly LLB 3.” The Court directed domain name registrars, ISPs, DoT, and MeitY to block and disable infringing domains, disclose registrant details, and issue blocking notifications.
Considering the recurring threat of online piracy, the Court extended dynamic injunction relief, permitting real-time blocking of newly discovered infringing websites i.e. blocking of the mirror / proxy websites as soon as they are identified, to effectively protect the plaintiff’s copyright and prevent irreparable loss.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court, while hearing a suit filed by filmmaker Karan Johar, seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, observed that the Plaintiff had garnered significant goodwill as a producer/celebrity, and the misuse of elements of his persona would cause confusion and deception if construed by the public as endorsed.
It was held that unauthorized use of Johar’s name, voice, dialogues, and images for commercial purposes amounts to infringement of his personality rights. The Court restrained Defendants from publishing any material that infringes Plaintiff’s personality right and directed the suspension/lock of the infringing domains and takedown of the disparaging material from social media and e-commerce sites.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a recent judgment, the division bench held that the marks “BOAT” and “BOULT” are phonetically similar, and therefore injuncted Exotic Mile from using the impugned marks. The Court held that phonetic similarity is relevant even for products sold online. However, it set aside the Single Bench’s injunction on the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF,” noting that such relief has not been sought in the pleadings.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT [2025:DHC:8511]
The Court while deciding Nokia’s application for confidentiality club in SEP (Standard Essential Patent), upheld the inclusion of ‘in-house representatives’ of defendants, re-affirming that the permissibility had been conclusively settled in Interdigital v. Xiaomi. The Court found that excluding them, especially when they were included in corresponding foreign jurisdictions, was “futile and… ought never to have been pressed.”
Furthermore, the Court rejected Nokia’s request for a two-year restriction on the defendants’ in-house representatives from participating in third-party licensing negotiations.
Regarding redactions, Nokia was permitted to redact portions that had “no bearing on determination of the FRAND rates.”
The Court directed the Plaintiff to disclose all comparable SEP licenses to the confidentiality club, holding that the plaintiff cannot exercise discretion in selecting which licenses to file, as the defendant must be able to satisfy itself that the offered rate is indeed FRAND.
DELHI HIGH COURT [2025:DHC:8522- DB]
The Division Bench of the Court set aside the Single Judge’s Judgment that had credited the Junior Dagar Brothers (JDB) for A.R. Rahman’s song “Veera Raja Veera,” holding that no prima facie case for copyright subsistence or authorship in “Shiva Stuti” was made out.
Clarifying that performance alone does not create copyright in a musical composition, the Court drew a clear distinction between performer’s rights and authorial ownership under the Copyright Act. Observing that the record identified the JDB only as performers and that “Shiva Stuti” has long been rendered across the Dhrupad tradition without exclusive attribution, the Bench found no basis for a claim of sole authorship.
The Court further held that the evidentiary presumption under Section 55(2) arises only where a published copy xpressly names a person as author. Setting aside all interim reliefs, including credit attribution and monetary deposit, the Bench remanded the matter for trial, directing that any future finding must rest on concrete proof of both authorship and originality.
SUPREME COURT [ SLP (C) No. 19767/2025 ]
The Court, while declining to interfere with a decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court granting an unconditional stay of a `336 crore damages decree against Amazon Tech, unequivocally affirmed that an unconditional stay of money decree can be granted and expounded upon the circumstances where such an unconditional stay may be warranted.
Specifically, the Court held that while requiring a deposit or security is the general rule under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, it is not an invariable or mandatory precondition. As such, appellate courts retain full discretion to grant an unconditional stay of execution in truly exceptional cases, i.e., when the decree is “egregiously perverse, riddled with patent illegalities, facially untenable, or such other exceptional causes similar in nature”.
This decision makes clear that courts should ordinarily direct the deposit of the decretal amount or insist on security, following a prudent judicial practice. However, in rare and compelling circumstances, such as glaring jurisdictional defects or fundamental injustice, an unconditional stay may be granted without such deposit or security.
The aforesaid findings were captured in the judgment dated 07.10.2025.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh, Mehr Sidhu, Abhinav Bhalla, Pushpit Ghosh and Sankalp Arya.
